• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How generous are you? (Part I)

How much do you allocate to the other person?


  • Total voters
    43

barbarian_style

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
761
Reaction score
154
Location
Existing between 2 entities of darkness
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Because it isn't your money to decide what to do with. You're only responsible for it.


I am thinking of a number 1- 1,000,000. OP has a quaky question not enough info given to draw up any conclusion on where the money came from or even where it is going, even though a choice has been given to allocate all of it or none of it.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Actually it is. It's called the Dictator Game and is a test of personal utility vs. altruism. It's been done in person in a lab setting many times.

Interestingly, in all experiments involving this game, most of the participants in the dictator role end up alotting money to the other person instead of keeping it all.



It shows that humans have an altruistic core, even with others they don't know. While theorists offer explanations for why the dictator would not maximize their own alottment, it may also partially disprove the economic theory that all humans are purely self-interested actors. I wanted to see if the results would be similar with people at DP and they were. The overwhelming majority would give some portion of the money away instead of keeping it all - and more would give half than in any other category. The fact that people know practically nothing about the receiver does not change the outcome.

Thanks everyone for participating.

Let's change the game now.
Have people do some kind of "work" for that money.

I'm betting the results would change.
I don't think this proves altruism, at all.

For one, the people are being observed by others.
They haven't factored in the visible social benefit from being fair, with found money.
 

barbarian_style

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
761
Reaction score
154
Location
Existing between 2 entities of darkness
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Actually it is. It's called the Dictator Game and is a test of personal utility vs. altruism. It's been done in person in a lab setting many times.

Interestingly, in all experiments involving this game, most of the participants in the dictator role end up alotting money to the other person instead of keeping it all.



It shows that humans have an altruistic core, even with others they don't know. While theorists offer explanations for why the dictator would not maximize their own alottment, it may also partially disprove the economic theory that all humans are purely self-interested actors. I wanted to see if the results would be similar with people at DP and they were. The overwhelming majority would give some portion of the money away instead of keeping it all - and more would give half than in any other category. The fact that people know practically nothing about the receiver does not change the outcome.

Thanks everyone for participating.

This is way I would keep it all because I know I am a better dictator than he would be. :peace
 

Real Korimyr #9

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
20,120
Reaction score
16,168
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
First, I wouldn't touch the money if it didn't come from a clean source, I really don't need the money.

I'll take money from anyone, whether the money is clean or not, as long as they understand I won't do anything dirty in return. Taking their money doesn't help them. It's giving money to dirty people that's morally unacceptable.
 

barbarian_style

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
761
Reaction score
154
Location
Existing between 2 entities of darkness
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'll take money from anyone, whether the money is clean or not, as long as they understand I won't do anything dirty in return. Taking their money doesn't help them. It's giving money to dirty people that's morally unacceptable.

The source of the money is from a guy in the mafia, the guy you can allocate money to is an undercover FBI. You keep the money and the FBI sting just implements you as part of the conspiracy. One stupid hypothetical is as good as 2.

I stand the money for me would have to be clean or too many variables in the hypothetical situation could net you trouble.
 
Last edited:

Temporal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
3,691
Reaction score
2,243
Location
Everywhere and Nowhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Let's change the game now.
Have people do some kind of "work" for that money.

I'm betting the results would change.
I don't think this proves altruism, at all.

For one, the people are being observed by others.
They haven't factored in the visible social benefit from being fair, with found money.

Yes and that is admitted in the snippet I posted. However, the same experiment has been conducted with the anonymity factor and the results are similar although the alottment tends to be less. That was going to be part II of this experiment on DP, but I thought people might get tired of seeing the same thing.

I think altruism is still a factor here.
 

Bettina

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Messages
56
Reaction score
17
Location
Northeast USA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Actually it is. It's called the Dictator Game and is a test of personal utility vs. altruism. It's been done in person in a lab setting many times.

Interestingly, in all experiments involving this game, most of the participants in the dictator role end up alotting money to the other person instead of keeping it all.



It shows that humans have an altruistic core, even with others they don't know. While theorists offer explanations for why the dictator would not maximize their own alottment, it may also partially disprove the economic theory that all humans are purely self-interested actors. I wanted to see if the results would be similar with people at DP and they were. The overwhelming majority would give some portion of the money away instead of keeping it all - and more would give half than in any other category. The fact that people know practically nothing about the receiver does not change the outcome.

Thanks everyone for participating.

This was awesome. Good Job. :)
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes and that is admitted in the snippet I posted. However, the same experiment has been conducted with the anonymity factor and the results are similar although the alottment tends to be less. That was going to be part II of this experiment on DP, but I thought people might get tired of seeing the same thing.

I think altruism is still a factor here.

Altruism is selfless giving, if it makes you feel good to give, it isn't altruistic.
 

lizzie

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
28,580
Reaction score
31,552
Location
between two worlds
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Whomever is giving me the money can just go ahead and give me whatever portion they deem is to be mine, then they themselves can do whatever they want with the rest. I don't accept conditions placed on something that someone gives to me. If they have deemed that it is to be split, then they should do the splitting and not try to put a guilt trip on me, nor try to judge my value as a human.
 

Temporal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
3,691
Reaction score
2,243
Location
Everywhere and Nowhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Altruism is selfless giving, if it makes you feel good to give, it isn't altruistic.

That's splitting hairs. Feeling good about giving can be included in some people's personal utility, but you can't generalize all people based on it. You'd also have to prove that feeling good is the source of giving, instead of being a secondary byproduct of intending to give.

If feeling good about helping other humans is built-in, then it still proves that altruism is part of our nature since there is a biological reward for doing so.
 

Enola

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
5,363
Reaction score
3,009
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
My opinion is the "test" has flaws because not enough info was given, and too many "what if's" came into play with the "test subjects" of why those chose what they chose in response to the poll. Not everything is black and white.
 

lizzie

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
28,580
Reaction score
31,552
Location
between two worlds
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If feeling good about helping other humans is built-in, then it still proves that altruism is part of our nature since there is a biological reward for doing so.

Well, it's highly possible that we've just been psychologically conditioned to feel good about it. We're taught from a very young age to be *nice*, which implies that thoughts of self-interest are to be supressed, which is total bunk.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That's splitting hairs. Feeling good about giving can be included in some people's personal utility, but you can't generalize all people based on it. You'd also have to prove that feeling good is the source of giving, instead of being a secondary byproduct of intending to give.

If feeling good about helping other humans is built-in, then it still proves that altruism is part of our nature since there is a biological reward for doing so.

It's not splitting hairs at all.
Feeling good is what you receive for giving people material resources.

It's a benefit, just not a tangible benefit.
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,801
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
i'm not buying that this test proves.disproves altruism...primarily because it seemingly supposes motive.

I'm for giving it all away to the other person, but that doesn't mean altruism is behind me doing so.
i simply don't need the money and I don't want the headaches of dividing it up and then going through the hassles of paying taxes on it.. let alone having that transaction red-flagged by the bank and investigated.
to me, i'm giving away a set of problem I don't want to deal with.
 

Temporal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
3,691
Reaction score
2,243
Location
Everywhere and Nowhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
It's not splitting hairs at all.
Feeling good is what you receive for giving people material resources.

It's a benefit, just not a tangible benefit.

I understand you, I'm just pointing out the flaw in that determination. Just because someone feels good from being altruistic does not necessarily mean they do it because it feels good. If altruism must mean that there are no benefits to the person giving then altruism does not exist, according to how you have defined it. That's why I feel you are splitting hairs. We can argue about whether the chicken or the egg came first all day, but the fact remains that people are altruistic by nature.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I understand you, I'm just pointing out the flaw in that determination. Just because someone feels good from being altruistic does not necessarily mean they do it because it feels good. If altruism must mean that there are no benefits to the person giving then altruism does not exist, according to how you have defined it. That's why I feel you are splitting hairs. We can argue about whether the chicken or the egg came first all day, but the fact remains that people are altruistic by nature.

It could be instinct.
Kinda like sex, we do it because it feels good, it feels good because it encourages us to procreate.
Sorta kinda like that.
 

Bettina

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Messages
56
Reaction score
17
Location
Northeast USA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
i'm not buying that this test proves.disproves altruism...primarily because it seemingly supposes motive.

I'm for giving it all away to the other person, but that doesn't mean altruism is behind me doing so.
i simply don't need the money and I don't want the headaches of dividing it up and then going through the hassles of paying taxes on it.. let alone having that transaction red-flagged by the bank and investigated.
to me, i'm giving away a set of problem I don't want to deal with.

Taxes, headaches, hassles, banks, investigations? :) Seriously?

Bee
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,652
Reaction score
5,150
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Do I know anything about the other person? Because that would affect my decision quite a bit. If I knew they were a drug addict I'd be inclined to give less. If I knew they had just lost their job and needed the money more than me, I'd be inclined to give more.

Knowing nothing about them, I'd probably give 10% or so at most.
 

Temporal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
3,691
Reaction score
2,243
Location
Everywhere and Nowhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
It could be instinct.
Kinda like sex, we do it because it feels good, it feels good because it encourages us to procreate.
Sorta kinda like that.

I could see how that might be true. An instinct to protect the group for one's own survival.
 

Middleground

Boid Beaver!
Bartender
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
27,491
Reaction score
13,921
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I voted 50%, because all I need is enough to keep me comfortable for the rest of my life, and I'm not that greedy.

Say the sum is 1 million and one dollar. Half would not keep you comfortable for life. Not even close...
 

Enola

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
5,363
Reaction score
3,009
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Altruism as a result would be more along the lines of:

A wealthy individual that is quite famous as a philanthropist offers to give you 5 millions dollars. You have two choices. Keep it all to yourself, or you can give 50% of it to the charity of your choice as long as that charity is legitimate (aspca, cancer society, ms foundation, etc etc). Would you give 50 % or take it all for yourself?

Something like that.
 

Real Korimyr #9

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
20,120
Reaction score
16,168
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Couldn't you just turn around and say, then, that "altruism" is the degree of personal utility you derive from helping strangers?
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well, it's highly possible that we've just been psychologically conditioned to feel good about it. We're taught from a very young age to be *nice*, which implies that thoughts of self-interest are to be supressed, which is total bunk.

Every single thing we do in life is because of self-interest. Every single thing. Our self interests need to be supressed. It's critical that we learn to feel good about being *nice* -- if we didn't, we'd be ***holes top to bottom.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
In my family, I was always taught it I had more than I needed, I should help someone else. I generally give about 10%-15%.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,354
Reaction score
14,419
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not sure. Being a stranger I don't know if they would use the money for drugs, weapons of mass destruction, or charity. I know my motives and what I would do with the money. If the money legally belongs to the both of us and we are equals I would split it 50/50. Whoever, if it's all mine and I am simply apportioning some to someone else I would have to think about that.
 
Top Bottom